Epistemology - Part 4

What is Truth?
Rene Magritte - La Trahison des Images (The
Treachery of Images)
Truth in Epistemology

Why do we study truth?

● the very concept of knowledge invokes the concept of truth

○ knowledge ←→ certainty ←→ truth
○ remember that for an argument to be sound, it must be valid, and
premises must also be true

The Truth Relation

Knowledge,
Things, objects,
beliefs,
the world, what is TRUTH judgments,
known
propositions

what the assertion is assertion

about
Theories of Truth

1. There are 3 central characteristics that relate what

is said and what is true
a. a special relation between a true belief and the
distinct object(s) which it is about →
CORRESPONDENCE
b. a special relation between a true belief and other
beliefs → COHERENCE
c. special consequences of true beliefs →
PRAGMATIC
Theories of Truth

Using the 3 central characteristics, there are 3 conceptions of

truth, also known as the 3 main theories of truth:

1. Parallelist conception - truth is

correspondence between our beliefs and their
objects
2. Circular conception - coherence among beliefs
3. Pragmatic/Linear conception - truth is the
power of a belief to induce successful action; the
successful translation of a belief into action
Parallelist Theory (correspondence)
True beliefs are mental reflections, which correspond, or are
parallel to, the real world
● recall the “two world assumption” (John Locke)
○ there are objects outside of my mind that exist, and are the cause of
the ideas or thoughts that I have in my mind
● Bertrand Russel (pp. 443) - there is a realm of facts that
exists independent of us → regardless, or in spite, of
perception
● sounds like: ideas are true if they correspond to its object in
the real world
● problems?
○ what do you think? (recall how Berkeley dealt with Locke’s
propositions)
Parallelist Theory (correspondence)

If we only know what we perceive, how can we know anything

about the real world? UNBRIDGEABLE GAP

thoughts ← → objects

Correspondence claims that we are acquainted with the outside

world. BUT, if we had direct access to the outside world, then
the ideas that we have would be superfluous (extra,
unnecessary)
Parellelist Theory (correspondence)

Other Problems…

● some beliefs are said to be true but there is nothing with

which to compare - i.e., a priori beliefs
● ther eare things that are necessarily tru, but do not
correspond to anything - i.e., mathematics
Circular (coherence) Theory

This theory states that there is a relation among

beliefs
“A true belief is one that coheres (fits together)
with other beliefs”. Beliefs are coherent if 2
conditions are met:
1. belief is consistent with other beliefs (no
contradictions)
2. they don’t simply agree, they imply one another
→ relevance
Circular (coherence) Theory

What does this theory have to offer?

● avoids the problem of parallelist theory (no need to consider

anything outside of the mind)
● modelled on the theory of knowledge that we consider to be
the most applicable
○ mathematics - all beliefs are connected or fit together with other
ideas that have already been accepted
● advantage: gives the possibility of certainty, precision, and
universality of knowledge
Circular (coherence) Theory

Problems:

● no answer to the relation between what is in our minds and

the world outside of our minds (two world assumption
cannot be addressed here) - a posteriori knowledge?
● we need to know whether the system applies anywhere -
compatibility
● are we certain that the other ideas to which our ideas cohere
to are not based on correspondence? are other coherent
ideas guaranteed to be true? is there a chance that the other
Pragmatic Theory

Dynamic relationships between ideas and events, between ideas

and things, between one thing and another

● When is an idea true? What makes it true?

● Ideas are true when we can act upon them
○ e.g., I can sit on a chair, therefore a chair is there
● this applies to both empirical and a priori beliefs
● truth of such belief adds to the discussion at hand
○ if accepting the idea leads to satisfactory
consequences, it is true
Pragmatic Theory

Problems:

● remember Euthyphro - discussion on holiness is similar to

pragmatists dilemma of truth: does a pragmatist believe an
idea because it is true (absolute), or does a pragmatist
believe something is true because it gets them what they
want (relativism)?
● reference point for determining truth is constantly changing
(dynamic)
○ we can only make conclusions about RELATIVE truth
● Pragmatic truth is subjective - my truth might be different
than your truth
What actually happened?
Is there such a thing as “objective” or “absolute”
truth? If so, how do we know it?